If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am not the type of person who likes to bash people down to prove them wrong. I just like to provide information to people out there which is availabe. It is up to you as a human being to decide what you want to believe in. Before I even decided to post this I was weighing my options since I thought that I would end up getting flamed. But I guess that it ended up turning to be a good debate after all. Especiall with bballad. I really give you props you really know your stuff. In all the debates that I have had nobody has ever really brought up interesting points. They usually end up with flames or fu here and there.
But I guess that in the end none of us will give in to what we each believes in. So for that I respect all you guys who have put your thoughts and comments and have joined this debate. Each and everyday that I look at this thread it just seems like it's getting more interesting. When something gets interesting I get really intrigued.
As for you bballad all I have to say is respect which you truly have earned.
Dont worry I dont take anything as an insult. Whenever I post anything on here and you disagree please feel free to tell me ...

Albert Einsten
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” Science, which once thought the case for higher power was closed, is now trending back toward his view.

Bballad the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.

Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

Also children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.)

Wild apes have not demonstrated these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with braille), and tapping (as with Morse Code or tap-codes used by isolated prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used,such as sign language. Different languages, such as English, Spanish, or Chinese, provide other alternatives.

If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex. Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.

It falls to those with extordanary claims to show proof, besides the point of science is not to disprove somethingits to provesomething that is why creationism has no right calling itself a theory, there is no proof only halftrouths and distortions used to attack eveolution. Now if Pope John Paul II and the catholic church can accept eveolution and see that science and learning about the way the world and univeres works is no threat to their faith why cannt you. Or is your beleif in god so weak that any change in your world view, any relization that there may be inacuracies in the bible would shater your weak faith?

Oh and I have read the pusdoscience from drdino before, a lot of people have lagit claims on his "prize" that he refuses to pay, he is dealt with nicely on talkorigins, fallow my link it covers every one of the half truths and lies he spews

Three things...

1.) Read this.
2.)Why is so hard for you to admit that you *might* be wrong? I could be, so why not you?
3.) Who didn't teach you how to spell?

Originally posted here by Agent_Steal
[B]Albert Einsten
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” Science, which once thought the case for higher power was closed, is now trending back toward his view.

Einstine never said that,in fact he was a deist and didn't beleive in a personal god that had any interaction with humanity...please stop lieing to try and make a point.

Bballad the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel sounds. Apes cannot make clear vowel sounds, because they lack this long air column. The back of the human tongue, extending deep into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making consonant sounds.

Even if an ape could evolve all the physical equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a “prewired” brain for learning language skills, especially grammar and vocabulary.

again you show your inability to read. we devloped through eveolution the ability to speak, jsut because apes cannot make the same sounds we can dosn't mean that they can not usse language. look at the link I provided on this topic, chimps learning sign language and comunicateing wiht it, and then teaching their children, makeing upo new signs and dsicuessing complex ideas with signs....or are you going to tell me that mute humans do not have language and cannot dicuess complex ideas?

[wuote]
Also children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.)

Wild apes have not demonstrated these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.
[/quote]
again with the lies, they do pass on there comunication skills, and just because we cannot unerstan the language apes (or whales or dolphins) use in the wiled dosn't mean the do not have a language. I doubt you acould understand esparanto but that dosn't mean that it is not a language.

Ok you still havn't laid out any proof for creationism I would be willing to listen to any....bt wait there isn't any..

here is a question for you, if the story of genisis is the TRUTH waht about the parts taht the early christians decided to leave out? what ever happened to lilth? what about the other parts of the old testoment that where left out? or the other gospials that the early christians left out of the new testemint (most notably the gospial according to Thomas)?You put a lot of faith in a book writen and compiled and translated by man Or was the eraly christian church infailable in there creation of the bible?

1.) Read this.
2.)Why is so hard for you to admit that you *might* be wrong? I could be, so why not you?
3.) Who didn't teach you how to spell?

1. I have allready debunkend the misinformation spewed in that post.
2. I very well may be wrong, and when a thro comes along that explanes the creation of life better then evolution if experimentation and pradictions hold that theory to be true it will replace evolution, thats how science works. On the other hand I will reject superstition and magic as attempts to hold t oignorance.

I am so sorry to disappoint you bballad but oh wait I must be lying about that quote. It must be a fiction of my imagination cause I found Albert Einstein did say that.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium

So before you accuse me of being a liar make sure that you got all your facts straight.

This biblical verse is for you bballad ::
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." - I Corinthians 13:11

Come on it's understable if a child was a child was to call me a liar but you come on ...

Yes I read that link that your provided ...

Our brains at birth have a specific sensitivity to timing and rhythmical patterns of the human voice, and that gives the child a tremendous kick-start--a tremendous thrust into the process. It allows--the sensitivity just to their mother's undulated patterns in her voice allows a child to find the beginning and ends of words, allows a child to extract out little chunks of sound, the building blocks of sound that we form when we form a word.

We call this behavior "babbling," and virtually **all human babies do it**, **while apes do not**. Even deaf children babble,Dr. Laura Ann Petitto discovered, by using their hands instead of their voices. This babbling behavior, she argues, is critical, because it is how children first play with the raw building materials of language. Later, they will fashion these materials in infinitely creative ways, which is how they understand the world and impose order upon it. By contrast, Petitto says, apes are almost always seen making or responding to requests. When Petitto looks at this, she sees Konzi making associations, but she argues human language goes beyond "mere association". For example, Konzi knows the symbol for peach but **can't comprehend that it's a type of fruit**. According to Petitto, Savage-Rumbaugh has concentrated on the similarities between apes and children which are, indeed, compelling **but has ignored the many striking differences.**

Also animals communicate with a fixed repertoire of symbols, or with analogue variation like the mercury in a thermometer. But none appear to have the combinatorial rule system of human language, in which symbols are permuted into an unlimited set of combinations, each with a determinate meaning.Some researchers have thought that apes have the capacity for language but never profited from a humanlike cultural milieu in which language was taught, and they have thus tried to teach apes language-like systems.

Now cognitive psychology has shown that people think not just in words but in images and abstract logical propositions. And linguistics has shown that human languages are too ambiguous and schematic to use as a medium of internal computation: when people think about "spring," they are not confused as to whether they are thinking about a season or something that goes "boing" -- and if one word can correspond to two thoughts, thoughts can't be words. If you were to tell an ape the word "Spring" would he be able to comprehend that "spring" is a season ??

Most people find it tempting to think that if language evolved by gradual Darwinian natural selection, they must be able to find some precursor of it in their closest relatives, the chimpanzees. In several famous and controversial demonstrations, chimpanzees have been taught some hand-signs based on American Sign Language, to manipulate colored switches or tokens, and to understand some spoken commands (Gardner & Gardner, 1969; Premack & Premack, 1983; Savage-Rumbaugh, 1991). Now wherther you want to call their abilities "language" is not really a scientific question, but a matter of definition:
"how far we are willing to stretch the meaning of the word "language??"

Though artificial chimp signaling systems have some analogies to human language (e.g., use in communication, combinations of more basic signals). Chimpanzees require massive teaching sequences contrived by humans to acquire quite rudimentary abilities,which mostly limited to a small number of signs, strung together in repetitive, quasi-random sequences, used with the intent of requesting food or tickling . This contrasts sharply with human children, who pick up thousands of words spontaneously, combine them in structured sequences where every word has a determinate role, respect the word order of the adult language, and use sentences for a variety of purposes such as commenting on interesting objects.

Just because apes can acquire rudimentary language [ Yes how far are you willing to stretch the definition of "Language" Bballad ?? ] abilities that does not mean that they can express themselves aswell as humans can ...

Here's some more quotes by Albert Einstein

[ Read with caution since I am now seen as a liar by bballad ]

In case you didn't know bballad[ oh wait I could be lying ?? ]; "skeptic" is a Greek word that means "to examine". We need to examine all the evidence and make up our minds what the truth is. I think that a lot of people get college degrees but devote themselves to one particular school of thought. They follow those thoughts without question and enjoy the mutual companionship of their closed group of peers. Most never realize that their grand theories are founded on mere presuppositions that have little to do with the facts. So read the following information below and then you can make your choice in how this universe was created. The choice is totally up to you.

I think that a lot of people would believe in God right now if He personally appeared to them. If God appeared to anyone, in any form, it would be enough to convince them it was really Him! But then we wouldn't have a choice; no opportunity to grasp love's concepts. God does not want to force us to follow Him; just be willing to make that choice for ourselves!

Think about it; all the ancient religions taught that the universe had no beginning,... but one. Some taught that gods came out of sort of a watery substance and that the earth was made through great upheavals and violence between the gods. A religion is worthless unless it is grounded in scientific facts! If there is such a religion today, then we better find out what the truth is in all this! Your very life may be at stake! Should you be mistaken!

"Just think about this bballad if I am wrong then I dont have to worry because I will just cease to exist once I die,, but if your wrong then you'll have an eternity to think about it ... "

I believe the God of the Bible is the most logical explanation for our universe as we know it today. Consider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect . The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!

Second, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.

Third, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!

Fourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, mood gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location.

Fifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.

Sixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." << no bballad I am not lying about this, since that is what you are probably thinking right know ...

Last, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. That is why Bible is the best explanation there is.

It wasn't till recently that anyone had reason to believe that there was a biblical beginning.

The evidence of design by a creator is discovered more clearly as we understand how the universe works. Scientists understand how the universe's laws are set within extremely narrow and critical parameters. Physicist Freeman Dyson stated; "The more I examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."

Where did all the natural laws of design come from? It is superstitious to believe the laws of nature govern themselves and the universe without cause! I have a supernatural explanation, do you have a natural one?

The observational evidence listed in the next few pages will prove that the laws of astrophysics were designed by a highly intelligent creator; God. First, the carbon atom should not exist or be exceedingly rare. In order for the carbon atom to form, it needs to be at a precise level of resonance. Resonance is the nuclear behavior of excitement within the nucleus of an atom. Nuclei is normally configured for stability and minimum energy. It can be excited as the result of colliding with other nuclei. When this happens, the proton moves into a higher orbit. A helium nuclei will collide with another to form beryllium. Then another helium nuclei collides with the short lived beryllium to form carbon. If the resonance was just a bit lower, carbon could not form. If the resonance was just a bit higher the energy level would destroy the carbon atom instantly. When Hoyle calculated the odds that such resonances could occure by chance, he stated that his faith in agnosticism was greatly shaken. Princeton's physicist Freeman Dyson stated that lucky accidents such as chains of carbon atoms, still could not form water, organic molecules, and the hydrogen to bridge between the molecules. Even Carl Sagan admits that the laws of nature "can not occur at random"; "It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with the galaxies, stars, planets, life and intelligence."

Second, if the ratio between the proton (which is 1836 times heavier than the electron), and the electron slightly different; there would be no chemistry, or life, or any physicists to wonder about it all! Stephen Hawking says; "The remarkable fact is that the values of their numbers seems to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Third, if the four fundamental nuclear forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak atomic structures) had been a slightly different strength; life would not be possible. The sun would cease to burn or explode like a fission bomb.

Fourth, the natural processes alone can not explain the specified complexities of the encoded information in DNA. Hoyle, Gold, Orgel, and Arrhenius calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life that might form in one place at ten to the fourty thousandth power. (That's 1 with 40,000 zero's after it) Since there are only ten to the eightith atoms in the entire universe; this suggestion was an outrageously small probability!

Fifth, the odds that the relative strengths that two forces could balance each other (gravity: which holds a star together and electromagnetic force: which allows a star to radiate energy) in every star were altered by a mere ten to the fourtith power, we'd have a world in which all stars were either red dwarfs or blue supergiants; making it impossible for planets to support human life.

Sixth, we have no modern theory why, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, our universe got into such an orderly state. The odds are ten to the tenth power times ten to the ten to the thirtieth power!

Seventh, the centrifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational forces of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the earth's gravity had been too weak, the moon would leave the earth's gravitational pull. If the gravity was too great, the moon would have crashed into the earth! This is also true of the earth's rotation around the sun and that of all the planets in our solar system, as well as all the galaxies to the farthest ends of our universe! This came by total random chance I dont think so.

Our universe was born as a result of a Creator who created natural laws that do not seem to change.

Some people actually believe that life must have been sent here on a spaceship from a dying civilization and that perhaps the astronaut's bacteria survived the journey. Others have suggested that genetic material was sent to this perfect planet for some sort of lab experiment. Of course these excuses only begs the question: How did life begin in the first place? If natural laws can not explain how life began on this "ideal" planet, how can it be so at any location?

Some people believe in the ultimate game of chance; Quantum Mechanics. This is the belief that there is no reality until someone observes it. If this idea were true then looking through a telescope could alter events billions of years into the past! This suggestion gives it's enthusiast's a chance to speculate that through man's act of observation, he caused his own creation along with the conditions necessary for life!

Of course, this theory creates a which came first; the chicken or the egg problem that can go on forever! This idea still does not address the need for a first cause. Incidently, physicists have never observed any effects in our visible world and very few scientists take seriously the notion that the universe, so perfectly designed, changed because someone looked at it! Perhaps the whole universe had no existance till it was observed? But who would be outside the universe to observe it? Does this not sound like the transcendent God? Soon as these folks realize that they are wrestling with the supernatural explanation that they have strived to avoid!

Some people believe that life must exist till the end of time, in a closed universe. In order for life to survive in that hot, dense time, when the universe will contract once again; our descendents must evolve to a very different and advanced civilization. Before the end of time, our super computer-like society will achive the ability to process an infinate amount of information. At that point, which will be called the "Origin Point", we will assume the role of gods. We will process and infinite amount of thoughts, at infinite speed, our evolved supreme civilization will redefine time; ensuring an eternity for ourselves and for every living being that existed in the past. Our future descendents will view the human soul as a program that can be replicated. They will propose that this infinite intelligence will resurrect each of us, so that we might be appropriately rewarded or reformed. People that are willing to consider such wild explanations can only demonstrate how impossible it is for them to avoid the evidence for design. We all must decide whether to credit the design of intelligence to God or to ourselves.

For some, the thought that humans might be the only form of intelligent life in the universe, strikes most with being extremely unscientific. Many scientists have suggested that the universe must be teeming with extraterrestrials by now, in order to conform with the assumption about biological evolution. Robert Jastrow stated; "If life is common, we'll be hearing from those guys soon, because we are in a very conspicuous part of the universe right now. Our televison and radio waves are spread all around us. It is reasonable to assume that advanced technological civilizations will be aware of radio physics. There is only one radio spectrum, and it's the same everywhere in the universe." So why have we not picked up any signals yet? If there are so many civilizations, more advanced than ours, certainly they would want to explore and colonize other planets in the galaxy! Ours would be ideal! We have the right conditions for life. So where are they?

We have only three choices. Either we decide that the universe, or mankind, or God is running the universe. Those willing to choose an alternative other than God, defies logic. The other two choices have no explanation or theory on which they can stand.Many of these quotes are from non God believing scientist.Those who have rejected the God of the Bible have to base their conclusions inspite of the evidence and not because of it!

Belief in "blind chance" like evolution requires considerable faith. Taken to it's logical end; it's so pathetic that it's almost funny! Logic dictates that we should devote our short lives to finding the means to know the one outside of time and space. Although the world is filled with suffering and violence; if people seek the answer, they would find out that God has done something about it all. There is good logic in trusting the one cosmic history that fits what we know of God.

Genesis was not written specifically about when and how the universe was created, but who created it! Psalms 111:2 states
"Great are the works of the Lord; they are studied by all who delight in them!"

It would be deceptive of God's character to create a universe that would appear to be billions of years old and yet be only six solar days. However, science and the Bible agree that planets and animals were created first and that man and mammals were created last.

God created the entire universe plus self-conscious beings like Himself.Just how it states in the Bible "So God created man in his image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."Genesis 1:27. Having been given a freedom of choice, these persons eventually declared their independence from God and broke His laws. Once this happen the situation became very unpleasant for God and so He had two choices. He could have exterminated them; the end, the plan failed. But, out of His caring concern and love for them; provide a solution. He could not simply forgive anyone because He had to do something about all the injustice in the world. God pronounced a just sentence (Romans 8:1); but also provided a full pardon to all who would take it. He had to be mortal because God can not die and He had to be God because only a sinless person could pay for the sins of another. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then He has the power and the purpose to rise from the dead!

If the infinite Creator wanted to communicate to all of us humans his creation what He was like; how could He show us more clearly than becoming one of us? If He wanted to show us how serious the offense is, to break His moral law, how better than to forfeit His own life? And if He wanted to tell us how much He loves us, how could He do it more dramatic than dying for us?

Biblical faith is more than intellectual reasoning. It is the logical choice! Other religions have teachings about an historical person, but it is Christianity that's based on what a person did. Of all the religions, no other has left such lucid evidence of God's involvement with humanity. We can either appreciate God's way more deeply or we can stubbornly and foolishly decide to go our own way and see where the outcome will lead.Like it says in the Bible in Psalm 53, verse one: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'

David from the Bible says this is paraphrased, "This withering takes place inside of the fool's heart." Because he has refused God, who is personally interested in him, the fool has become shriveled in his inner most being. He is hollow and barren because on the inside of his life, where he really lives, he is alone."

Probability, at which Agent goes to great length to prove an existence of some grand force, says life should be common. And it might be. But life does not necessarily equate to being as sophisticated as humans. In fact, the probability that DNA formed is very high, and in fact could prove that intelligent life is EXTREMELY rare in the universe, even among the countless galaxies we cannot even perceive. No one disputes that scientific observation.

You can argue differences of apes and humans for a century. The fact is, they are similar AND they are different, just like my dog. She has 4 appendages, two forward looking eyes with binocular vision, a single brain, a heart, 2 lungs, 1 stomach, similar intestines, similar sexual organs etc. But she is not me and will never become as aware and intelligent as me, just like the ape. Only the ape is a little more similar in that it walks up a little and has some similar motion and design in body movement and hand movement. So what? All it really means is that the similarities among creatures in basic design is remarkable and every where on the planet and like bodies can be categorized into groups such as “mammals.” Even a duck has the same basic body design with excitingly different uses for his feet and arms, or wings and he doesn’t even belong to the group of similarly designed creatures such as “mammals” he in fact is a

That could mean a few things. Maybe god wanted us all to be alike, or sometime in the past we altered from a similar ancestor that had 2 eyes, 2 upper appendages, 2 lower appendages, a neck, a head with a brain, a heart, lungs, etc. And those most similar to man in appearance could have snaked along a different path. Who knows, maybe god blew life into a bunch of different dust balls, but we only get the description of creation from mans interpretation, about man and creation. God never told us how it happened with any detailed description..

What IS definitely common in the galaxy is the ingredients, the molecules, that we are made of. It's everywhere. What is rare is the dust to life equation of science and religion. What bothers me is the misuse of science to falsely lead a person down a pre-conceived and never changing path. If opposition to science won, we would still be at an earth centered universe set in divinity, and mankind would never marvel at its own wondrous biological makeup and his precise coordinates in space and time.

I think when some get edgy in discussion; that notion of “stifling” science is the true fear of evolutionists. It has nothing to do with denying god his right, in fact that would make everything much easier if god was the creator and some how our spirit, with no locomotion mechanism of its own, some how warped physical space time and transported to another place outside our own physical universe. A place endless, timeless and eternal. I wonder, with all this capability why angels needed wings?

As for extraordinary claims? Dust to life is pretty extraordinary. In fact it’s divine.

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.

I personally dont think that Agent has gone to great lengths to prove his point.He has just asked a quetion which many people want an answer to. Yes some people seem to get offended by it. While others gain knowledge and more understanding. Like a quote states:

"Those who truly search truth will find it, and know that God exist."

Here's something just for thought ...

When a frenchman monarch proposed the persecution of the Christians in his dominion. An old statesman and warrior said to him:
"Sire, the Church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."
"So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives."
--- H.L. Hastings ---

I am so sorry to disappoint you bballad but oh wait I must be lying about that quote. It must be a fiction of my imagination cause I found Albert Einstein did say that.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium

sorry not a liar just a person who puts too much faith in bad sources.
to quote Mr Enstine himeself (with refernces as to where he said his comment something your quote is missing.)
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

So before you accuse me of being a liar make sure that you got all your facts straight.

ok no that we have straightened out the fatcs, your either a lier or willfully ignorant.

"Just think about this bballad if I am wrong then I dont have to worry because I will just cease to exist once I die,, but if your wrong then you'll have an eternity to think about it ... "

here is the most dispicable lie you push. So a christian cannot beleive in eveolution, even thouh religion exists in the spiritual relm and eveolution in the scientific....humm well I guess the Catholic Pope is not a real christian in your eyes.

I believe the God of the Bible is the most logical explanation for our universe as we know it today. Consider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect . The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!

"

Have you read the bible or do you just spout out what some fundi minister tells you to spout. Notice that in the book of genisis there are two seperate and contradictory creation stories. Wow I guess a book writen by man, put together by man, and translated over and over by man (many of who understood the idea of alagory somehting you seem to miss) may have errors and embelishments (not to mention out right fictions.)

If I am lying that Albert Einstein did say those words, then why is that when one does a search for that quote on google it appears on many websites ?? Would like to give me an answer to that bballad ?? Could they be all making it up aswell .. I would like to have an answer to that question.

Read Lines 45-46

This section of the article is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

II.

religionIt would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science.
Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development. To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature. We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself. The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.